Post by Dimitri Stamatiadis on Apr 2, 2016 12:33:54 GMT
Dear all,
Here is another discussion topic on which we have exchanged interesting views with members of our group: Should workflows be controlled by the system or can they be managed by procedures. Here is an example of the second option: An author creates a document, optionally invites co-authors to contribute. When the document is near finished, the author invites other people (as stated in the SOPs) to review the draft by viewing it in the system and provide him/her with their comments either orally during a meeting or in writing (e.g. in an email). The author then incorporates any comments and promotes the document to "Approved" with no further processing. The audit trail records who initiated the document and who approved it. If no e-signature is needed, this scenario can work for many documents and does not require the system to lock down the document in the different intermediate states (for review, reviewed, for approval etc). In small organisations where communication is easy, such a process can work well because there is little risk that the document is changed during review or that the appropriate people do not review it.
Any thought or strong opinions?
Here is another discussion topic on which we have exchanged interesting views with members of our group: Should workflows be controlled by the system or can they be managed by procedures. Here is an example of the second option: An author creates a document, optionally invites co-authors to contribute. When the document is near finished, the author invites other people (as stated in the SOPs) to review the draft by viewing it in the system and provide him/her with their comments either orally during a meeting or in writing (e.g. in an email). The author then incorporates any comments and promotes the document to "Approved" with no further processing. The audit trail records who initiated the document and who approved it. If no e-signature is needed, this scenario can work for many documents and does not require the system to lock down the document in the different intermediate states (for review, reviewed, for approval etc). In small organisations where communication is easy, such a process can work well because there is little risk that the document is changed during review or that the appropriate people do not review it.
Any thought or strong opinions?
